Talk:Hurricane Sandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeHurricane Sandy was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 26, 2012.


Common name[edit]

I have read the archive and it seems to me that the bare consensus was to bold the name Superstorm Sandy, no matter how stupid the public is and will forever remain. Now that I have added my weight to the consensus, it is unequivocally to bold. I shall make the change now, and reversions will not be productive. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion I am referring to is here. The consensus of the discussion was NOT to boldface the term. Nothing to do with any alleged stupidity of the public. It's an informal name, not one recognized as a techncial name of a hurricane. But since it was frequently called "Superstorm Sandy", that was the compromise: quote it but do not boldface it. I have no wish to get into an edit war at this time, so will let this be for now. But what actually was discussed and the consequent consensus should be clarified. --Alan W (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You cherry-picked the discussion with far fewer participants. I imagine this sort of behavior is to be expected of those who know they will lose on the merits.... Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There has been no agreement on anything since previous discussions, so you have no right to change anything at this point. I don’t care what your interpretations of consensus are, it was obviously left that way for a reason. So you need to start a new discussion and get project members involved if you want a change. United States Man (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I see, I have no rights. And this thing here isn't a discussion. Your trifecta would be complete, if only, oh, if only the tens of millions of members of the public weren't so stupid as to make this the WP:Commonname. Drat, let me get my monocle and look to see how I can wikilawyer my views all over even though Wikipedia Policy would say to bold it. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s a name that’s commonly used. Does it matter if it’s bolded or not? Blind people who hear the article (or read in brail) won’t notice a difference. Let’s keep it civil, and focus on the important things. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this really isn't that big of a deal. If Abductive wants to bold the term then let the term be bolded, I'm not going to wake up screaming at night as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
That was my feeling too. And I thought that maybe I was the only one who cares anymore. But I see that is not so. And what Hurricanehink says about civility gives me pause for thought, too. Abductive, you were the one who barged in here like gangbusters, with accusations, drenched in sarcasm, of our considering the general public "stupid", of our "cherry picking" the evidence and, implied in "trifecta", of three of us ganging up on anyone who doesn't agree with us. There has been no evidence of any such thing. We, and others, have had civil discussions about this in the past, with the one I "cherry" picked being the last formal discussion. As United States Man says, if you're seriously interested in changing this, you should open a new discussion and get project members involved. Also, note that WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles; it says nothing about boldfacing names within articles. There are other considerations, too, and it seems to me this is a gray area. Which is why it was the subject of prior debate. While we're flinging around Wikipedia rules and guidelines, how about WP:AGF? --Alan W (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that Abductive was in the wrong here when it came to WP:AGF with this edit [1]. Had he or she approached it with a better edit summary then editors wouldn't be so riled, to be fair though nobody bothered to cite WP:BRD in the edit summaries either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I see I have been reverted again, and again the reverter denies that this discussion on the talk page is a discussion. I have gone through the archive looking for the numbers of notvotes on this issue. Here are the unique users who have indicated what they would like:
Against bolding, some even against the name appearing in the lead, or even the article: Alan W, Kafziel, TornadoLGS, United States Man. Jim.henderson, CrazyC83. 6.
OK with non-bolding but want the name to appear in the lead: Mitch32, TheAustinMan. JonRichfield. Nabla (changed mind somewhat to this position), Pete, Guy1890, MarioProtIV. 7.
For bolding: Hot Stop, Hurricanehink (now a bit more equivocal), The Anonymouse, Thegreatdr, TropicalAnalystwx13, YE, 12george1, Knowledgekid87, Sailsbystars, Rreagan007, Inks.LWC (changed mind). 11.
Bolded and was reverted: Imzadi1979, Tazerdadog, Barticus88, Bongwarrior, Sizeofint, J 1982, 1618033golden, Mr. Guye, Abductive. 9.
Equivocal: Ankit Maity. Jason Rees. 2.
As can be seen in the lengthy discussions in the archives, plenty of input from interested editors was received. Importantly, the trend is towards bolding. I am merely the 20th person to happen upon this article and say that, as is common practice and called for by MOS:BOLDSYN, the alternative name should be bolded.
So, what is the upshot? First, the consensus, over the raging objections of a few, was to include the awful term Superstorm Sandy in the lead. Those objections were based entirely of a repudiation of the media and the public's latching onto this name. Then once it was in the lead, discussion has moved towards asking for it to be bolded in accordance with longstanding Wikipedia consensus and the Manual of Style. For quite some time it was italicized. Users have come by and bolded, only to be continuously reverted; I have listed them above. So what we have is WP:tendentious editing by a few article WP:Owners. The consensus is to bold the name. In the end, the outcome will be that it will be bolded. The path by which this outcome is reached might include a "discussion" more formal than this, by why waste time if you cannot prevail? Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Consensus was made several years ago to not bold the name, end of discussion. This whole arguent smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that needs to stop. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. And I think I have demonstrated that it has changed, and that not bolding is now the minority position. And I will not end this discussion, I am sorry. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Abductive has a point though with MOS:BOLDSYN. I don't seem to remember there being a consensus on the bolding or not, just with the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Actually, there was such a discussion over the bolding over 4 years ago, and the consensus was no bold. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Your notvote is already listed above. Thank you for your endlessly repeated belief in the losing minority opinion, but the time has come to bold the common name, as is required by the Manual of Style. Abductive (reasoning) 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Abductive: Just go ahead, it really doesn’t make any difference to me honestly. I think the name is stupid as well, but if it has to be in there and you want it bolded then I’m not going to keep fighting :P United States Man (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep it unbolded. If a new discussion is opened, I will join. But if, as it seems, others are throwing up their hands and saying, OK, bold it and have done with it, then I agree it's not worth the energy to fight this battle. If Knowledgekid87 doesn't expect to wake up screaming in the middle of the night if the name is bolded, neither do I. There are more important things to expend energy on around here. --Alan W (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you guys feel about the quotes? Abductive (reasoning) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If we boldface the name, then the quotes are overkill. I'd say it should be one or the other. --Alan W (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but if anyone feels like quotesing it, or just the superstorm part, please do. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about that. If we're going by WP:MOS, which I would hope we all are, and I know you have recently cited it, Abductive, then that is even more of a gray area than I thought this case of boldfacing was. See MOS:BADEMPHASIS: 'Double emphasis, such as "italics in quotation marks" or italics and an exclamation point!, is unnecessary.' Maybe there could be double emphasis in certain instances, but I think they would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. So, if anybody wants to quote and boldface the name, there should be further discussion here first. --Alan W (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Sandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Sandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Table of Tropical Cyclone and Hurricane Watches and Warnings[edit]

I've moved the Table of Table of Tropical Cyclone and Hurricane Watches and Warnings added by B dash to after the accounts of preparation in all countries. Those did not apply to only the United States. But, additionally, I'm concerned that the table looks incomplete. Surely there were watches and warnings issued for the Northeastern United States, where the storm hit particularly hard. What about those? --Alan W (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alan W: the NHC didn't issue much watches and warnings for the northeastern United States, the table is completed. --B dash (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The table is not complete since the non-tropical watches and warnings, that were issued for the northeastern United States should be included.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jason. That is pretty much what I was thinking. The U.S. National Weather Service must have issued watches and warnings of that kind. Perhaps you or another editor who like yourself specializes in Tropical Cyclones can find the sources (probably more quickly than I could). --Alan W (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)